PER CURIAM: Dan Williams, II, appeals his conviction
for distribution of crack cocaine. He argues the trial court erred in allowing
testimony about his past drug use because the evidence was not relevant to
proving he sold crack cocaine. After a thorough review of the record and counsel's
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State
v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we dismiss the appeal and
grant counsel's motion to be relieved.[1]

APPEAL
DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ, concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.